« Response to a comment | Main | Please explain this »
August 28, 2003
Latest theory: Bush didn't lie, he was tricked
Oh, this is good!
From Atrios, we learn that the LA Times are reporting that intelligence officials are now looking into the possibility that Saddam may have used "double agents" and defectors to trick us into thinking he had weapons even though he didn't.
Although senior CIA officials insist defectors were only partly responsible for the intelligence that triggered the decision to invade Iraq last March, other intelligence officials now fear that key portions of the pre-war intelligence may have been flawed.The article discusses some of the thoughts as to why Saddam might have tried to maintain such deception and notes that so far, there has been no evidence that any chemical or biological weapons were produced at any time after 1991. It also talks about concerns that some intelligence officials had about the use of defectors - in particular, defectors associated with the Iraqi National Congress run by Ahmed Chalabi.As evidence, officials say former Iraqi intelligence operatives have confirmed since the war that Saddam's regime sent "double agents" disguised as defectors to the West to plant fabricated intelligence. In other cases, Baghdad apparently tricked legitimate defectors into funneling phony tips about weapons production and storage sites.
"They were shown bits of information, and led to believe there was an active weapons program, only to be turned loose to make their way to Western intelligence sources," said the senior intelligence official. "Then, because they believe it, they pass polygraph tests . . . and the planted information becomes true to the West even if it was all made up to deceive us."
There is growing concern, said another U.S. intelligence official, that "people were just telling us what we wanted to hear."
The CIA and State Department, in particular, distanced themselves from Iraqi defectors handed over by the Iraqi National Congress, a London-based umbrella group headed by Ahmed Chalabi. CIA and State Department officials repeatedly warned that the group's intelligence network had proved unreliable in the past.Chalabi has been one of the prime promoters of the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destructions, and was cited by Judith Miller as the source for several of her stories trumpeting the worst of the pre-war fears. He is also currently a fugitive from Jordan, who tried him in absentia, found him guilty of fraud and have sentenced him to 20 years in prison. Of the defectors he provided, one named a bio-weapons location, but no weapons have been found there, one is the person who first described mobile biological labs, none of which have been conclusively shown to exist yet, and the third was dismissed as a fraud. I can see why the CIA and others may have been wary of him and any information he might provide. What I can't see is why anyone would have considered him to be reliable.Senior Pentagon officials, however, supported the former Iraqi banker's bid as a possible successor to Saddam. Chalabi, who now sits on the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad, has said his group provided the Defense Intelligence Agency with three defectors who had personal knowledge of Saddam's illicit weapons programs.
Posted by thorswitch at August 28, 2003 12:47 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.differentstrings.info/mt/mt-tb-ds.cgi/1115
Comments
Yeah, ditto, why would the Administration put ALL of their eggs into a basket labeled "Chalabi"? Wouldn't they want a LOT of corroboration before committing troops? You'd think....
This is fundamental Sun Tzu "Art of War" stuff: don't mount an army if you don't need it to defeat the enemy. The illusion can be more powerful if it deters them or undermines their power.
Makes me truly question the Defense Dept.'s smarts if they couldn't see that it was a possibility they were being spun.
Posted by: Rayne at August 28, 2003 10:18 AM
"What I can't see is why anyone would have considered him to be reliable. "
I don't believe they truly did consider him reliable. He (and dog knows who else LIKE him) was their best hope to gin up the "evidence" needed to sell the war. Do you really think they didn't know they were blowing smoke the whole time they scared my soccermom neighbor down the street into believing Saddam was a terrorist threat to us?
Where is the outrage?
Posted by: Tara~Ist at August 28, 2003 10:10 PM